Karl Rove’s Silence About Saddam’s WMDs?

Quite a lot of people are upset about this:

Starting in 2004, some members of the George W. Bush administration and Republican lawmakers began to find evidence of discarded chemical weapons in Iraq. But when the information was brought up with the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove told them to “let these sleeping dogs lie.”

The issue of Iraq’s WMD remnants was suddenly thrust back into the fore this week, with a blockbuster New York Times report accusing the Bush administration of covering up American troops’ chemically induced wounds.

To people familiar with the issue, both inside that administration and outside, the blame for the coverup falls on one particular set of shoulders: Rove’s…

I was listening a little to Rush today and he was clearly flabbergasted about it. While we did not find in 2003-2004 the sort of active, WMD program that global intelligence services said would be there, it is clear from recent reports that Saddam had, indeed, quite a lot of WMDs and WMD-related materials. The fact of the matter is, of course, that Saddam wasn’t supposed to have so much as a spark-plug which could be WMD-related – per the 1991 Gulf War cease fire and various UN resolutions, every last bit of it was supposed to be removed and destroyed from Saddam’s domain. It is absolutely certain, now, that this was not done – Saddam secreted quite a lot of chemical weapons and various components for WMD programs. This, and this alone, gave sufficient moral and legal justification for the resumption of hostilities between the United States and Saddam’s regime in 2003. The whole liberal narrative about the war – that we faked evidence of WMDs in order to start a war in order to enrich Cheney’s buddies at Haliburton (and, really, this is what the left thinks the war was all about) – is false. Stupidly false, too.

Liberals will just keep on with their narrative as they never let facts get in the way of a good (for liberals) narrative, but quite a lot of criticism over these new revelations (which really aren’t all that new, of course; they are just being noticed, now, in the MSM) is coming from the right – condemnations of Karl Rove for not getting the Bush Administration to front-and-center this information, especially in the 2005-2006 time frame, when it could have proved crucial to resetting the political battlefield – a battlefield which ultimately went disastrously bad for the GOP in 2006 and 2008, largely on the strength of the liberals’ false narrative about the campaign in Iraq (to me, it wasn’t Katrina that wrecked the Bush Administration credibility – though the false narrative in that event played a big role – but, rather, it was the insertion into the American mind that Bush et al had lied about Saddam’s WMD that did the damage). Why, the question is being asked, did Rove drop the ball on this one? Why did he, so the accusation go, keep this information quiet? The allegation from other political players at the time is that Rove felt we had already lost the battle over WMDs and it was better not to stir things up, and so as evidence of WMDs piled up – and American soldiers were injured by said WMDs – a lid was kept on things. Why?

I can’t read Rove’s mind so I don’t know – if Rove gives comment on it, then those comments can be weighed in light of accumulated evidence. But here’s what I think really caused the problem:

The fundamental flaws in Bush Administration policy regarding the war were two:

1. A failure to clearly identify radical Islam as a problem.

To be sure, the Bush Administration was more clear about this than the Obama Administration, but even Bush Administration people – and President Bush – were out there routinely declaring that Islam means peace and essentially making it clear that there was no fundamental problem within Islam that needed to be addressed.

2. Following upon that, there was no strategic plan to completely remake the Muslim world.

As we couldn’t fault Islam, itself, so we couldn’t craft a plan which would have us knock down all known generators of the problem within Islam. We curtailed our efforts. We stopped at the Iraqi border and clearly never thought about marching in to Syria or Iran (two prime makers of radical Islam), but we also refused to cut our ties with the Saudis who provided lavish funding directly to Islamic groups who preached hatred, and indirectly (along with many other oil-rich Arabian States) actually funded Jihadist groups.

Hamstrung as we were, I can see Rove’s position: the only thing that was wanted, especially from 2006 onwards, was a successful conclusion to Iraq. Bush and team managed to accomplish that, but as the real problem was never addressed and all political activity had been exhausted on just getting to victory in Iraq, there was nothing left over, really, for the larger issue. Re-fighting the WMD issue would have been a waste of time – and, in fact, counter-productive. Of course, in reality, fighting the WMD issue the first time was a waste of time – and counter productive. We never should have bothered with such nonsense. We did it primarily because it was felt – incorrectly – that we needed a broad, international coalition and some sort of UN approval (and it was vital to get UN approval – or at least attempt to – in order to get Britain on board). We dithered around with that and got caught up in a side-show: whether or not Saddam had WMDs. Well, he did. And I remain convince that he had a lot more, but it was moved out of his territory by other, concerned actors during the period between our first demands and the many, many months which passed in trivial, useless action with the UN.

So, don’t fault Rove for silence on Iraqi WMDs – as a political operative, he was doing what was necessary to achieve a narrow, political goal: garner enough support to see us through to the end in Iraq. It wasn’t his job to set national policy – that was President Bush’s. Here is where I fault him – though, of course, partially with hindsight. While I’ve always felt that the reason for going into Iraq was for the larger, strategic necessity of changing the Middle East in a fundamental way, I did believe that if we could secure a reasonable regime in Iraq, we could provide an alternative to the Muslim people and they would cease to listen to the purveyors of hatred and war. I’m not so sure, today, that even if Obama had continued Bush’s policies in Iraq that this would have come to pass. It might have – and we certainly should have tried – but the more I see of radical Islam, the more convinced I become that only a really sound thrashing from one end of the Muslim world to the other will convince the Muslim people that they’d better get on board with stamping on the jihadists. This is not, by the way, because I think that most Muslims like the jihadists (I think most Muslims despise the beheaders and enslavers), but because I think that most Muslims are deathly afraid of the jihadists. And rightly so, as we’ve seen with the ISIS barbarians – our actions would be to show that if you sign on with us, we’ll be there for you as long as needed and we’ll ensure that the jihadists are never able to triumph.

We’ve pretty much lost the war right now. Iraq is a disaster, Syria is a disaster, Iran is triumphant and Afghanistan will go back to the Taliban within weeks of our withdrawal, from what I can see. The jihadists are strong and feeling stronger and the people of the Muslim world who don’t like the jihadists look out and see absolutely no one around the world who will come to their aid…so, they mostly just go along to get along and hope that not too many of their sons and daughters fall victim to the jihadists. We will, though, eventually have to get back into this war and win it – savagery like ISIS simply cannot be allowed to stand…and the longer we allow it to survive, the worse and more powerful it will get, and eventually those people will do something so horrible to us that we’ll have to act. And when that time comes, we have to treat the whole Muslim world as a unit, just as the jihadists do (they care nothing for the artificially created political boundaries within the Muslim world). We’ll have to go to war against the enemy where ever he is, and go after everyone who in any way, shape or form gives aid to the jihadists. But that is a war for another time – maybe even ten or twenty years from now. For now, the disaster is what it is – and what happened between 2004 and 2008 is what happened. No sense raking it over too much, or trying to assign blame for it all to Karl Rove. Mistakes were made; that we all know. Our job is to learn from them.

Liberal Fascism Update

I wish I could say this is unbelievable, but its actually getting rather common:

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”

ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.” …

Yeah, it is all that. What is at issue is an absurd law passed by the Houston City Council which opens all public restrooms to whoever – you know, feeling a little female today? Then go ahead into the ladies room. Stupid, politically-correct, liberal bull. But liberals know what they are doing – they are trying to criminalize non-liberalism. Rational people figure that it’d probably be best to keep men and women separate in the whole restroom experience, but liberals know that if the can make it illegal to be rational, they can then direct the power of government against reason (and, thus, against non-liberal thought and actions), and that is what they are doing here.

Of course the case will be decided on First Amendment issues – and I fully expect the pastors to prevail – but that isn’t the point. The point is to intimidate – while the pastors in this case won’t suffer legal consequences, all pastors – and, indeed, everyone who takes exception to liberalism – will be intimidated. Everyone has got a life to live and while we know what is good and true, if we’re to be hauled into court by liberal fascists every time we speak the truth, then maybe we should just not mention certain things? The territory of truth will be circumscribed and liberalism will have another area of total dominance, which is what the liberals want.

The cure for this is to pass laws making liberals – especially liberal office holders – responsible for their actions. It won’t do any good, really, to just get an injunction against the city council prohibiting them from taking punitive action against the pastors – the actual, individual liberals who are on the council and who took this action must feel pain for their action. It should be, in such cases, when a court finds the government body in error – that they have violated the rights of the citizens – then the members of that body have to pay, out of their own pockets, punitive, monetary damages to the citizens they oppressed. Make that city council member pony up $100,000.00 and future council members will think twice before they go along with this sort of thing.

We have to get a handle on this – liberals want an end to liberty. If we don’t punish them for trying, then they will just keep on trying.

Defending Columbus

A lot of people just don’t like the guy – including a family member of mine who has a significant amount of Native American blood. But I do think that he’s gotten a bit of a bad rap and someone should stand up to defend him.

First off, the modern picture being built up of Columbus as some sort of racist-sexist-imperialistic pig deliberately trying to destroy and conquer is nonsense. Columbus was, first and foremost, a seaman and explorer. That was his main thing in life – he liked to go to sea, he liked to explore. And he was very good at both.

There is some ridiculous bit of Columbus revisionist humor out here which holds that he didn’t know where he was going or what he was doing – but he knew precisely where he wanted to go and, actually, he hit land in the New World pretty much exactly at the time and place he calculated – it just wasn’t the land he was looking for, because the earth was larger than he thought. And think about what he did the job with: his flagship – the Santa Maria – was 62 feet long. To give you a bit of contrast, the 19th century U.S. frigate Constitution is 175 feet long, and a modern, Burke class destroyer is 509 feet. Columbus was at sea in tiny boats. Not only were the ships tiny, but navigation was still primitive. Tell a ship’s captain today that he’s to go from Spain to Cuba with merely a compass to help navigate and he’d turn you down – and he at least knows where Spain and Cuba are in relation to each other! Columbus didn’t. He set off into the blue thinking that just maybe there was land at such a such a place and he would find it by using dead reckoning navigation…and he did it. This is an astounding achievement of seamanship regardless of what else one wishes to think about Columbus or the arrival of European in the New World.

In addition to denigrating Columbus’ achievement as a ship’s captain, the more important condemnation of Columbus is that he did morally wrong by arriving in the New World. Columbus was the deliberate and malicious bringer of slavery and genocide to the New World. This assertion stands in the public mind firmly atop the very large number of Natives who died – but to me, it is absurd to condemn Columbus for things he never intended and especially for things which happened after he was absent from the New World. Columbus’ intention was to find a trade route to Asia – he wasn’t intending on finding a New World, still less one which, in the event, turned out to have no immunity to non-American diseases. He wasn’t out to massacre. He did enslave – but so did every other sort of person on earth when they came across strangers who could not resist them…including, it must be said, the peoples of the Americas who also engaged in slavery.

The thing about the peoples of the New World is that they were, well, people. In other words, just like everyone else – with their portions of good and bad. Just as we can find noble people in every community, so can we find base people. No one lives in harmony with the environment because no one can – we all must change the environment to suit our needs or we’ll die. There was only one Eden, and God kicked us out of it because we sinned – and we go on sinning. In the fullness of time, we’ll be back in Eden; but if you’re looking for an Eden after the Fall, you won’t find it in this life. Columbus did not stumble upon Paradise and destroy it – he found people. Had no one ever taken it into their heads to sail Columbus’ course and the New World had been left to its own devices, then the history which would have been written in 2014 by the people living here would be as much a chronicle of crime and chicanery as anywhere else – but also a chronicle of people who rose above and did right in spite of everything, just as everywhere else.

I do understand that for the Native peoples of the Americas, the coming of Europeans was a catastrophe. A much more technologically advanced civilization came upon a less technologically advanced people and the result was bound to be bad for the peoples of America. It was going to massively disrupt the social, political and economic lives of the people living here. Adding to the that was the fact that no one – anywhere – knew how diseases were spread and the peoples of the Americas, isolated for many thousands of years from the main stream of human interaction, had no defense against the diseases of Europe, Africa and Asia. It was the onslaught of disease that caused most of the destruction – and no one intended that it should be so. Given the nature of things, eventually someone – from Asia or from Europe – was going to arrive on the coasts of the Americas. At some point in human history, the foreign disease environment was going to arrive and cut a bloody swath through the population. To blame Columbus – or anyone – for this is to arrive at the level of absurd.

It is also very true that the Europeans still should have treated the populations of the New World with justice and mercy. This didn’t happen. Plenty of crimes were committed. But this is now more than 500 years since Columbus sailed and we can’t undo what happened – neither the mere appearance of a different civilization, nor the un-intentional transmission of disease, nor the criminal failures of many who arrived in Columbus’ wake. The world we have today is the result of everything that went before and our job, as rational human beings, is to learn from what happened and seek to better the example of the past.

Some are calling for changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day – I disagree with the change, but not with the creation of an Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us have both – let us have a day set aside to honor a brave man – and his crews – who set out into the unknown to widen the horizon of human knowledge. Let us also set aside a day to remember the peoples of the Americas who were here when Columbus arrived. It has been the mingling of all the peoples of the world in the New World which created the dynamic civilization which has more than once been able to right the wrongs of the Old World – both in Europe and Asia, as well as Africa. In the long chain of events, because Columbus sailed the ocean blue, an American Army arrived on the coasts of France to bring liberty, and American food and medicine has arrived all over the world to end suffering. The net balance of all that has comes to pass in the Americas has been good, not bad – and Columbus deserves remembrance as the man who set the events in train.

Wasting Time Dying

You might have heard the story of Brittany Maynard, the 29 year old newlywed who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and who plans on killing herself on November 1st. It appears that her decision to kill herself in a very public manner is in service to her ideological desire that the laws of the United States be changed to make it easier for people to kill themselves. This is a very sad – pathetic – story to hear.

Upon first hearing the story, my first thought was: what a waste of time. The time this lady is spending on planning and marketing her death is time which she could well spend more usefully. You know, loving her husband, her family and her friends. Doing things as she is physically able. Perhaps even developing ideas to help other people who will be faced with her problem in the future. Each minute she spends on her death is a wasted minute – she won’t get them back.

Here is the news flash for everyone: we’re all going to die. Not a one of us will get out of life alive. To greatly concern one’s self with death is morbid. After all, none of us know when we’re going to die – not even Brittany Maynard. Oh, sure; she’s planned it for the 1st, but she could just as well get hit by a bus tomorrow, or her cancer could take a vastly worse turn and finish the job by October 31st. On the other hand, she might not get hit by the bus – and her cancer could take a vastly better turn and instead of having six months to live, maybe she’d have nine. Or twelve. Or even two more years – but if she goes through with her plan, she’ll never know, and her family and friends will be bereft, perhaps long before they should been.

In the old days, the Catholic Church would not bury a suicide in consecrated ground. To modern ears, this seems harsh and unreasonable, but the thought behind it was this: a suicide is the worst sort of murderer because a suicide murders the whole world. To kill yourself, when not an act of merest insanity, isn’t the act of a brave man, but of a coward – a self-centered coward, at that. Because life isn’t working out as a person wants, that person has decided to kill everyone, and every thing. No person is loved enough, no sunset is beautiful enough, to keep the suicide willing to endure just one more day.

For people like Ms. Maynard, the argument is this: “I don’t want to suffer pain and debilitation, nor do I want my friends and family to endure the pain of my long, slow death”. To me, that argument is a lot of nonsense. My mother endured a painful and debilitating death from COPD – many was the time my heart was wrung with pity for her suffering. Many is the time she wished for an end to it all. But had she offed herself in say, June of 2003, then I wouldn’t have been able to make her that last dish of my special mashed potatoes shortly before she died in December of 2003, nor would she had been able to rally herself painfully to make for me one, last batch of mom’s pea soup in October of 2003. And after she died, after one last, terrible night of suffering, all I wanted was five more minutes – even knowing they would have been painful minutes, and as my mother loved me, I’m sure she wished she would have given those five, painful, additional minutes.

We must keep in mind that, in reality, none of us can predict the future. We simply do not know what might happen. Just because someone says something terrible is going to happen by such and such a date doesn’t mean that it actually will. Life is what it is. No one is assured a soft life, nor any easy exit. In a more or less painful manner, we will all die. It is our duty – out of love for God and gratitude for our existence – to live our lives from first to last with as much dignity as we can. We are to pour ourselves out in love for one another, until God calls us home. Not, most assuredly, only until it is no longer easy or convenient for ourselves.

I feel sorry for Ms. Maynard and I will pray for her. Pray that she will see where the true act of love lies and hope that, in the end, she’ll trust in God, rather than the assertions of doctors, or the counsels of fools that November 1st should be her last day on earth.

For another take on this, go here - where another dying woman urges Ms. Maynard to reconsider.

Understanding Obama, and the Liberals

Now, I don’t know if any of this is true, but I’d bet money that it is. Here are some things I bet that Obama – and most liberals – believe:

That ancient Egypt was made up of black Africans and is the fountainhead of Greek civilization.

That Greece and Rome were relatively insignificant in the development of higher civilization, having stolen what they knew from other, non-white civilizations.

That Islamic civilization really did advance science and learning.

That Judeo-Christian, Western civilization is no great shakes – it’s science and learning were hijacked from other civilizations and it’s contribution to the world is war, pestilence, imperialism, racism, sexism and slavery.

Given this, it is no surprise that Obama scorns Israel and Britain and seeks closer alliance with entities like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the mullah’s in Iran…nor surprising at all that faced with the easy task of closing our borders to people from Ebola-infected areas, he says “no”. We’re not all that great – in fact, we’re terrible and the non-Western world is great. We have everything to learn from them, and must un-learn all that our Judeo-Christian civilization has taught us. We must do this if we are to survive, because only by placing ourselves at the feet of superior, non-Western civilizations can we develope the basic decency to be worthy of survival.

All through Obama’s Presidency we have seen this – and we see it very often in the overall liberal mindset. Think about it: what we consider a bizarre ignorance on the left when they ignore viciously anti-woman activities in Islam, they don’t even see a problem: Islam is by its non-Western nature superior to us, and thus there simply can’t be anything wrong in their actions. If we see something wrong, then we’re just projecting our own evil on them and, indeed, if they are doing evil it is because they are foolishly emulating us. And the sooner we get in step with them, the sooner we’ll understand the real truth of what is going on, and improve ourselves up to their level, and whatever evil they are doing will cease once we stop exporting our evil to them.

Of course, there is raw, practical politics to deal with – and so we’re lobbing a few bombs towards ISIS to appease the hill-apes in the United States who don’t understand that ISIS, if it is evil, is our fault to begin with. Obama will some times make a move which is rational but only to keep his political viability strong enough to advance his prime desire: moving the United States away from a western civilization orientation and towards a non-western – moving us towards a mind-set, that is, which will despise what we have been and only live for the day when we become the “other”; when we will no longer bitterly cling to our guns and our Bibles and will become was wise and far-seeing as the peoples of non-West.

If Obama and his liberals get their way we will no longer be the United States we have been. The choice is rather stark for us: do we love being Americans? Do we love being of the West? Do we love having as a basis of our laws and customs Judeo-Christian ethics? Then we’d better figure out a way to completely remove the left from the ability to affect policy. If we don’t, then this United States of America will be fundamentally transformed, as promised.

Abortion and the Return of Moloch

First off, for our liberals out there – who was Moloch? Moloch was a pagan god who went by various names in the ancient world, but the main point here is that Moloch was appeased by human sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of children. In case you ever wondered why the Romans, after defeating Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroyed the city entirely and sowed the ground with salt, it was because the Roman’s despised the Carthaginians, who worshiped Moloch – to the Romans, what sort of savage, inhuman people sacrifice children like that? If you want to get a sense of the horror the Romans felt, imagine a community of modern, American people getting dressed up in their best to go watch a baby being roasted alive. Since the downfall of Carthage and the later rise of Christianity, the very concept of human sacrifice has been anathema in the West – until recently.

Here was have an article by Sady Doyle which is urging all good liberals to cease defending abortion as a necessary evil, but promote it as a positive, moral good:

Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights is a deeply felt and well-researched book which argues that abortion, despite what any of its opponents might claim, is a palpable social good. Progressives, Pollitt says, can and must treat abortion as an unequivocal positive rather than a “necessary evil”; there is no ethical, humane way to limit abortion rights. The fact that Pollitt needs to make this argument in 2014, however, seems to indicate that pro-choicers have long been a little too nice for our own good…

Too nice for their own good? Goodness, it’s like the good lady hasn’t even checked to see just what sort of hatred, vitriol and violence is directed against pro-life people by pro-abortion. But, we’ll set that aside – the real issue here (and I do give her points for honesty) is that she’s of the view that abortion is morally good, and insistent that the pro-abortion movement say just that in public.

The article goes on for a bit about how sweet and wonderful abortion is – essentially asserting the view that pregnancy is a disease and massive, artificial medical intervention is necessary lest women have the unbelievable horror of pregnancy “forced” upon them, apparently in violation of the primary female activity, building a career in corporate America (yep, nothing says “freedom” better than being shackled to a cubicle for 8 hours a day…of course, it could be that Ms. Doyle doesn’t interact often with that part of the sisterhood which doesn’t make its living writing articles lauding abortion…). It is horrifying to read; to understand that in 2014 we have people who have so far gone into moral topsy-turvydom that evil is good and good, evil. Pregnancy to Ms. Doyle is a problem - and it needs a solution, and might as well make it a Final Solution, right?

I’ve long held the view that once you step off from morality, you’re doomed to just get worse and worse unless you step back to morality. Chesterton in one of his stories had a character point out that you can some times maintain a reasonable level of good (in spite of routine failures and sins), but you can’t maintain a reasonable level of bad – once you go bad, unless you repent completely, you’ll just get worse and worse. Once people asserted that human life is not uniquely valuable and legalized abortion, it became certain – unless we repented – that we would eventually start killing anyone who isn’t up to snuff. Now we see euthanasia for the ill and elderly, people advocating for children to be killed even after birth if they aren’t “fit”, and now a bald-faced assertion that killing is morally good – this being far different (and, morally, far below) the original argument of rare, sad necessity used to push abortion to legality. Given how far we’ve fallen, I don’t think that anyone can argue against my next statement:

Unless we repent and restore the sanctity of human life in law and custom, we will eventually start celebrating the murder of human beings.

I’m not kidding – people who have fallen low enough to say that abortion is morally good will eventually want to celebrate it. It is the next step down, don’t you see? What would stop them from doing such a thing? They already hold life, itself, in contempt – only the most narrow and selfish interests move them…and if they are to have an abortion, why not make a party out of it? And they’ll do it when they kill the elderly, as well – in fact, I can easily see, given attitudes about the environment, that killing human beings can be seen as beneficial to the world…a small sacrifice to Mother Nature, right? That it is human sacrifice – heck, so much the better: in fact, when you abort your child (or off you grandmother), you are doing a good deed…you are helping to save the plant by reducing humanity’s carbon footprint!

We are, fortunately, on the cusp of an increasingly pro-life America. The young, especially, seem to be keen on allowing everyone to live (having been born in a time when they, too, could have been aborted at will, I think, has concentrated their minds on the matter). I do hope that this is the last, hideous shriek of the Culture of Death – but if these people do continue to have power, they will continue to press their case, and we might find altars to Moloch springing up here and there. The lesson here is for everyone who still claims to be “pro-choice”: you can no longer hold to that position. You really do have to choose – be pro-life, or be pro-abortion (or, more accurately, pro-death). Pro-choice was a phrase which allowed people to hide from the actual, moral choice required of them. It is now time to choose – which side do you want to be on? On one side, there’s the rather difficult task of getting everyone into the world, and then treating them decently until they die a natural death. On the other side, people who will kill because a person is inconvenient. Pick.

Obama Joins the GOP in Fighting to Defeat Democrats

Geesh!

…Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”…

Democrats just spent the last 6 months distancing themselves from Obama and here comes The Smartest Man, Ever, to muck it up for them. The last thing Democrats need is a public reminder from Obama and each and every House and Senate Democrat is a mere rubber-stamp for Obama.

The truth will out, they say – and Obama has done truth a favor, for once. I don’t know what his intent was, but he’s made it clear what the 2014 stakes are. And GOPers are already running with it.